Mitt Romney’s long-awaited “religion speech” struck me as both trivial and troubling.
With respect to his Mormonism, Romney refused to explain or justify his faith to those voters who may be wary of voting for a Mormon, which presumably was the purpose of the speech. Instead, he merely asserted that he believes that “Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind” and that his church leaders will exert no influence on presidential decisions. Perhaps there was little more that Romney could have said on this issue. But I question whether his insistence that he “will be true” to his Mormon beliefs—while principled and courageous—is likely to persuade those skeptical voters for whom the speech was intended.
Romney’s discussion of the role of religion in American life was equally superficial, and demonstrated that he is a liberal multiculturalist at heart. Romney spent a large part of his speech talking about the grand American traditions of religious liberty and toleration, but he attributed these noble ideals to the fact that we are a religiously “diverse” country, without crediting the sophistication and goodwill of the Christian majority who established and fostered these ideals. As he stated: “The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.” Thus “diversity” and “dialogue” are held to be more important to our country’s history and culture than the nation’s deep Christian roots or our philosophical and political traditions.
[LA replies: I think Mr. W. is being a bit too hard on Romney here. America in its origins was not simply Christian, but consisted of a plurality of Christian denominations. It was the unity within diversity of those denominations that made a common American community possible. The real question, which liberals such as Romney never address (and essentially all Americans today are liberals), is what is the degree of diversity that is legitimate and viable? To put it another way, what degree of substantive unity must there be among the diverse elements? Simply to embrace diversity as diversity implies that unlimited diversity is a good. And I agree with Mr. W. that we see that implication in Romney’s speech. But in this regard, how is he different from anyone else in the race, with the exception of Tom Tancredo?]
But Romney’s liberal multiculturalism went much farther than simply trumpeting the nation’s religious diversity. In his speech, Romney took the next step and proclaimed the essential oneness of all religions. Thus, according to Romney, Americans of all denominations, regardless of theological differences, share “a common creed of moral convictions.” Romney even claimed that these disparate religious traditions inspire him on a personal level. As Romney wrote, in what for me was the most ridiculous passage in the speech:
“I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages [apparently Romney hasn’t attended any services in Reform synagogues!], and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims.”
Only a few years ago, conservatives were ridiculing Al Gore for his use of the term “faith tradition.” How is what Romney said in his speech any different? This passage, in my opinion, was disingenuous to its core—and reveals that Romney was much more concerned about pandering for votes than offering a serious public statement about religion in America.
Lastly, I couldn’t help but note the conspicuous inclusion in this passage of the positive reference to Islam. Ever since 9/11—not to mention the Madrid and London bombings, the Beslan massacre, the Cartoon Intifada, the French riots, the kidnappings and beheadings of journalists and missionaries, and on and on and on—our political leaders, on the right as well as on the left, have gone out of their way to praise Islam as a “religion of peace,” and to show the same respect for Muslims as they show for Christians and Jews. Heck, I predict it is just a matter of time—and continued immigration from Muslim countries—before we start hearing about our nation’s “Judeo-Islamo-Christian” heritage!
Contrary to Romney’s belief in the ultimate oneness of all religions, the increasingly violent conflict between the Muslim world and the West is being driven by differences in ideology, which for Muslims is explicitly grounded in their religion. This is not a struggle over natural resources or foreign markets or “living space” for burgeoning populations. This is a “clash of civilizations,” to use an overworked but apt description. Yet Romney is either too ignorant or too committed to the liberal nondiscrimination principle to recognize the obvious. Hence, although he criticized “radical Islam” and “violent jihad” in his speech, Romney could not bring himself to acknowledge that the principal targets of the jihadists are Christians and Jews. Instead, incredibly, Romney claimed—in the face of 30 and more years of terrorist acts—that the jihadists are “killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference.” [LA replies: But look at all the Muslims that the Muslim terrorists in Iraq have killed.]
The phrase “with equal indifference” is what convinces me that Mitt Romney should not be President. This was a deliberate choice of words. This goes well beyond the usual “religion of peace” rhetoric, or the frequent apology that terrorists are “extremists” who have “hijacked” Islam. Here, Romney is saying that even the terrorists themselves do not hate Christians and Jews on religious grounds. The terrorists hate, and kill, everyone “equally.” So there is no need to be worried about all that clash of civilizations nonsense, right? Or Muslim immigration. Or what might happen to Israel. And so on. Isn’t this the perfect illustration of Auster’s First Law of Majority-Minority Relations? “The worse any designated minority or alien group behaves in a liberal society, the bigger become the lies of Political Correctness in covering up for that group.” Isn’t the ultimate PC lie to deny that the jihadists are targeting Christians and Jews because the Koran commands them to be killed or subjugated?
Mr. W. replies: